TFCC

Telecommunication Facility
Co-ordination Committee

29 April 2005
Mr Andrew Haire
Senior Director (Policy & Competition Development)
Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore
Fax: (65) 6211-2116
Dear Mr Haire
PUBLIC CONSULTATION - REVIEW OF THE CODE OF PRACTICE FOR
INFO-COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES IN BUILDINGS (COPIF)
1.

Please refer to IDA to the public consultation on COPIF.

2.

We are pleased to submit comments and suggestions, as enclosed, to

IDA for the above proceeding.

Yours sincerely

Telecommunication Facility Co-ordination Committee (TFCC)

Encl

TFCC
Telecommunication Facility
Co-ordination Committee

COMMENTS ON DRAFT COPIF 2005

1.

To improve the ease of reading the COPIF, it is suggested that the

drawings of manholes and pipes in Section 5, Figures 5.1 to 5.29, to be
moved to the Annex.

2.

We suggest to update the following to bring the draft COPIF 2005 more
inline with the industry practice:
a)

Change Class D to Class C for Figure 5.1;

[Reason: Typo error]

b)

To insert a new sub section Lead-in pipes or pipeline systems

shall be constructed at a depth of 1m below carriageway and at
a depth of 1.2m below side-table or footpath. In addition, lead-in
pipes or pipeline system towards the outside of the development
boundary shall not be facing the direction of trees/OG box, other
permanent obstacles and into State Land in Section 5.2;
[Reason: Depth of 1m and 1.2m in accordance with LTAs
practice for all public roads. To ensure that lead-in pipes can be
picked up easily by service provider, they should not be
obstructed by any physical obstacle. Separately, National Parks
Boards COP states that there shall not be any
services/underground plant within the 2 metres radius of a tree.]

c)

To include shall be of grade 20 after concrete surround in

Section 5.2.6;
[Reason: This was formerly known as 1:2:4 by the industry but
has now be termed as grade 20.]

d)

To include Grade 20 before 1:2:4 mix in Section 5.2.9;

[Reason: Same as above in (c).]

e)

Change SS:272 to SS:141 for Figure 5.4;

[Reason: Typo error]

f)

To include at least a depth of 1m after the road-side drain in

Section 5.5.3;
[Reason: LTAs practice/Drainage Department requirement]

g)

Delete Figure 5.6;

[Reason: Reducer is not in use.]

TFCC
Telecommunication Facility
Co-ordination Committee

h)

To include The pipes shall also be laid at a depth of 1m below

carriageway and at a depth of 1.2m below side-table or footpath
in Section 5.7.4;
[Reason: LTAs requirement for laying of pipes below all public
roads.]

i)

To include Wherever possible, the pipes should be laid in

straight run in length of 6.0m and joined together using a coating
of solvent cement applied to both the coupler and pipes. in
Section 5.7.6; and
[Reason: This is to reduce the number of joints in the entire
pipeline. It is noted that too many joints may weaken the entire
pipeline.]

j)

To include A 1-way trap shall be provided at the neck of these

manhole to prevent foreign object from entering the manhole. in
Section 5.8.3.
[Reason: For manhole constructed on low ground, there is a
greater chance of water aggregation, it will thus be good to have
such a 1-way trap.]

3.

TFCC noted that it is not stated clearly in draft COPIF 2005 that for
development with underground basement, where the lead-in pipes or
pipeline system stops at the retaining wall, cable trays must be
provided from the retaining wall to the MDF room, TERs and risers.
Furthermore, TFCC is of the view that as such cable trays are essential
to the roll out of telecommunication services, they should also be
included as in joint inspection checklist.

4.

TFCC is of the view that where lead-in pipes over-cross the drain,
developer or owner when seeking Drainage Department for approval,
should also undertake to the Drainage Department for any subsequent
diversion work by Drainage Department.

5.

TFCC is of the view that for cluster landed housing with more than 30
units, a MDF room should be provided to allow telecommunication
system licensees to install their equipment for the provision of
telecommunication services. The size shall follow requirement in Table
6.3.4 of draft COPIF:2005.

TFCC
Telecommunication Facility
Co-ordination Committee

6.

TFCC is of the view that separate ELCB and its electrical accessories
should be provided for the provision of different services (to denote
BCS or non-BCS equipment) into the development.

7.

TFCC has encountered instances where it needs to conduct multiple

rounds of inspection as developers or owners did not manage to rectify
all shortcomings or discrepancies. The above imposes considerable
resources on TFCC. TFCCs preference is thus to only conduct one
joint inspection to highlight any shortcomings or discrepancies and not
to conduct further re-inspection. Developers or owners will then rectify
the shortcomings and discrepancies based on the joint inspection.

8.

TFCC requested to be kept informed of owners of single-unit landed

houses who have chosen not to install internal wiring and/or BCS.